I wish he would never comeback playing that badly.I dont even enjoy watching him anymore.

Click to expand...

I agree. I have been a fan of Nadal for 8 years now, and I have never seen him play this badly. I would rather he retire than go out there and make a fool of himself against lowly mugs he would have blown off the court in his prime. It's not fun to watch him anymore at all.

I agree. I have been a fan of Nadal for 8 years now, and I have never seen him play this badly. I would rather he retire than go out there and make a fool of himself against lowly mugs he would have blown off the court in his prime. It's not fun to watch him anymore at all.

Click to expand...

You are kidding, right? Sometimes I have trouble telling with you.

The guy just came back from an extended lay off period. Do you people really expect him to come back at a level where he isn't going to struggle?

This is professional tennis, not a walk in the park. Even a relative mug is a good player, and if you are away from the courts for almost 7 months it's expected that you will have trouble.

I wouldn't say I missed Nadal as a general rule. Tennis moved on and it was fine, just as it will be when any of the other 3 take an extended injury break or retire. The only time I felt Nadal was needed was when Ferrer got his ass handed to him by Djokovic at the AO. When Nadal is playing well he's needed to balance out draws, but we had plenty of exciting matches without him.

That said, I'm glad he's back, but I wasn't crying myself to sleep when he was gone.

This is professional tennis, not a walk in the park. Even a relative mug is a good player, and if you are away from the courts for almost 7 months it's expected that you will have trouble.

Click to expand...

i wish clarky was right, but i'm afraid you've got a point. i prefer to be cautious: i won't celebrate his downfall until he's really out of the top 1000 or officialy retired from tennis for poker/fishing/curling/etc.
he's won way too many matches in those 2 weeks...

i wish clarky was right, but i'm afraid you've got a point. i prefer to be cautious: i won't celebrate his downfall until he's really out of the top 1000 or officialy retired from tennis for poker/fishing/curling/etc.
he's won way too many matches in those 2 weeks...

i wish clarky was right, but i'm afraid you've got a point. i prefer to be cautious: i won't celebrate his downfall until he's really out of the top 1000 or officialy retired from tennis for poker/fishing/curling/etc.
he's won way too many matches in those 2 weeks...

Nadal is at the center of the two most engaging rivalries of the past 10 years. For that reason alone, I think anybody not blinded by hate might welcome his return. Without Nadal, Federer would have 26 slams and counting at this point.

i wish clarky was right, but i'm afraid you've got a point. i prefer to be cautious: i won't celebrate his downfall until he's really out of the top 1000 or officialy retired from tennis for poker/fishing/curling/etc.
he's won way too many matches in those 2 weeks...

Click to expand...

Canadian fans would love nothing more than to see Nadal taking on a curling career. We'd pay good money to see that.
But sadly, that will never happen. Curling is very tough on the knees. Seriously.

Still, it's good to see he's still as crazy as ever. Just saw his match today, still a basket case, jumping over lines, picking his pants, water bottles and all. They even showed a slo-mo replay of him carefully avoiding stepping on the lines as he was headed back to the chair!
I was afraid he might have used his time off for some therapy sessions with a shrink, but no such thing, he's still the same.

The guy just came back from an extended lay off period. Do you people really expect him to come back at a level where he isn't going to struggle?

This is professional tennis, not a walk in the park. Even a relative mug is a good player, and if you are away from the courts for almost 7 months it's expected that you will have trouble.

Click to expand...

No, I am not kidding. He is struggling with guys that live on the challenger tour, and have a losing record there as well. Injury layoff or not Nadal should not be struggling this badly with these types of players.

And this tournament is the first one Nalby has played in 6 months yet I don't see him struggling with clowns and mugs like Nadal is.

Nadal is at the center of the two most engaging rivalries of the past 10 years. For that reason alone, I think anybody not blinded by hate might welcome his return. Without Nadal, Federer would have 26 slams and counting at this point.

Click to expand...

And that's exactly the reason why ****s want to see him dead and burried..

Nadal is at the center of the two most engaging rivalries of the past 10 years. For that reason alone, I think anybody not blinded by hate might welcome his return. Without Nadal, Federer would have 26 slams and counting at this point.

Click to expand...

And if that happened Federer would not even be considered a top 3 player in history, because everyone knows Sampras is better than Federer on grass and arguably hardcourt too. 26 slams for Federer would just prove that he's in the weakest era in history. Nadal has saved Federer's legacy by giving Federer some relevance - although its common knowledge that we are at least in the weakest grasscourt era ever. We are in the best baseliner era ever, hence the best clay era ever. But the level on grass has been horrific since top dogs Rafter, Goran and Sampras disappeared.

No, I am not kidding. He is struggling with guys that live on the challenger tour, and have a losing record there as well. Injury layoff or not Nadal should not be struggling this badly with these types of players.

And this tournament is the first one Nalby has played in 6 months yet I don't see him struggling with clowns and mugs like Nadal is.

Click to expand...

Please, don't compare Nalbandian with Nadal. Their situations are completely different. And Nadal relies on his physique far more than Nalbandian (Nalbandian at one point was so fat that his arse had its own Zip Code), so it's to be expected he has been more affected by the layoff. And Nalbandian's layoff has been around 2 months shorter than Nadal's.

I can't remember the last time you showed any positive attitude towards Nadal. It can get a little tiring. If, on the other hand, you are anti-jinxing him, congratulations. I guess you weren't trying hard enough during Wimbledon.

And if that happened Federer would not even be considered a top 3 player in history, because everyone knows Sampras is better than Federer on grass and arguably hardcourt too. 26 slams for Federer would just prove that he's in the weakest era in history. Nadal has saved Federer's legacy by giving Federer some relevance - although its common knowledge that we are at least in the weakest grasscourt era ever. We are in the best baseliner era ever, hence the best clay era ever. But the level on grass has been horrific since top dogs Rafter, Goran and Sampras disappeared.

Click to expand...

Interesting view point. I guess you could spin things different ways. Somebody could say that Federer would have done even better in a less baseline intensive era. But you got some interesting points though.

Please, don't compare Nalbandian with Nadal. Their situations are completely different. And Nadal relies on his physique far more than Nalbandian (Nalbandian at one point was so fat that his arse had its own Zip Code), so it's to be expected he has been more affected by the layoff. And Nalbandian's layoff has been around 2 months shorter than Nadal's.

I can't remember the last time you showed any positive attitude towards Nadal. It can get a little tiring. If, on the other hand, you are anti-jinxing him, congratulations. I guess you weren't trying hard enough during Wimbledon.

Click to expand...

Once he gives me something to be positive about I will be. Right now losing to mugs and clowns on his best surface isn't giving me very much hope for the future. Or do you think losing a set to a guy who has a losing record in challengers, who is ranked outside the top 100, and hadn't played an ATP level tournament in his entire career is something to be thrilled about? Not to mention losing the Chile final to a guy ranked 73 in the world. Nadal made him look like Sampras his return was so bad. There is absolutely nothing that tells me Nadal will get better. I'd rather he retired than continue on like this.

Until he is playing in the same draw with the other top players and is posing a threat, its not like he is even back. Nadal playing and losing a 250 final is not something to be over the moon about. If he is back in the top 4 and playing well then yes its good to see him back. tight now its quite bizarre.

Once he gives me something to be positive about I will be. Right now losing to mugs and clowns on his best surface isn't giving me very much hope for the future. Or do you think losing a set to a guy who has a losing record in challengers, who is ranked outside the top 100, and hadn't played an ATP level tournament in his entire career is something to be thrilled about? Not to mention losing the Chile final to a guy ranked 73 in the world. Nadal made him look like Sampras his return was so bad. There is absolutely nothing that tells me Nadal will get better. I'd rather he retired than continue on like this.

Click to expand...

Are you still feeling that guy who said Nadal at the moment isn't playing better than a 150 ranked player, was being ridiculous?

And if that happened Federer would not even be considered a top 3 player in history, because everyone knows Sampras is better than Federer on grass and arguably hardcourt too. 26 slams for Federer would just prove that he's in the weakest era in history. Nadal has saved Federer's legacy by giving Federer some relevance - although its common knowledge that we are at least in the weakest grasscourt era ever. We are in the best baseliner era ever, hence the best clay era ever. But the level on grass has been horrific since top dogs Rafter, Goran and Sampras disappeared.

Click to expand...

So wait a second, if Federer had 26 slams it would prove this is the weakest era ever but Nadal winning every clay tourney in sight proves its a strong clay era? Really?:shock:. And we should thank Nadal for Federer's legacy? :lol: and quite frankly the only evidence that this might be a weak grass era is that Nadal actually won Wimbledon twice. But I chalk that up to the slowing of the courts.

So wait a second, if Federer had 26 slams it would prove this is the weakest era ever but Nadal winning every clay tourney in sight proves its a strong clay era? Really?:shock:. And we should thank Nadal for Federer's legacy? :lol: and quite frankly the only evidence that this might be a weak grass era is that Nadal actually won Wimbledon twice. But I chalk that up to the slowing of the courts.

So wait a second, if Federer had 26 slams it would prove this is the weakest era ever but Nadal winning every clay tourney in sight proves its a strong clay era? Really?:shock:. And we should thank Nadal for Federer's legacy? :lol: and quite frankly the only evidence that this might be a weak grass era is that Nadal actually won Wimbledon twice. But I chalk that up to the slowing of the courts.

Click to expand...

Well, let's look at things under a different perspective.

Federer was believed to be destined to become the GOAT with or without Nadal's interference. If he had won 26 slams without Nadal, he wouldn't have been any better than he is now, he would simply not have had the opposition. On the other hand, Nadal was always the underdog, but strangely enough, when everything was said and done, the balance of the rivalry favors Nadal immensely. Leaving clay aside, Nadal has defeated "the GOAT" in slam finals in grass and hardcourt. Federer has defeated Nadal only on grass. He should have defeated him on hard if the H2H were more ample in the big stages, but that is not the point. Nadal is untouchable on clay, and able to inflict damage to Federer elsewhere. Federer can't say the same.

Federer was believed to be destined to become the GOAT with or without Nadal's interference. If he had won 26 slams without Nadal, he wouldn't have been any better than he is now, he would simply not have had the opposition. On the other hand, Nadal was always the underdog, but strangely enough, when everything was said and done, the balance of the rivalry favors Nadal immensely. Leaving clay aside, Nadal has defeated "the GOAT" in slam finals in grass and hardcourt. Federer has defeated Nadal only on grass. He should have defeated him on hard if the H2H were more ample in the big stages, but that is not the point. Nadal is untouchable on clay, and able to inflict damage to Federer elsewhere. Federer can't say the same.

Much better having a top four rather than a top three.
Could have used him to give Djok some decent opposition at the AO in the semis, rather than the virtual training run he got against Ferrer.
No disrespect to Ferrer - he's a fine man and a great competitor but just isn't up to taking on the big boys.

I do but less because of his fighting spirit (though I have to admit he does bring the greatest intensity on court since Hewitt in his younger days) and more because IMO he matches-up better with both Novak and Murray individually than they do with each other (not that I think Novak-Murray matches are terrible mind you, I'm not judging their rivalry solely on their last slam final meeting).

Federer was believed to be destined to become the GOAT with or without Nadal's interference. If he had won 26 slams without Nadal, he wouldn't have been any better than he is now, he would simply not have had the opposition. On the other hand, Nadal was always the underdog, but strangely enough, when everything was said and done, the balance of the rivalry favors Nadal immensely. Leaving clay aside, Nadal has defeated "the GOAT" in slam finals in grass and hardcourt. Federer has defeated Nadal only on grass. He should have defeated him on hard if the H2H were more ample in the big stages, but that is not the point. Nadal is untouchable on clay, and able to inflict damage to Federer elsewhere. Federer can't say the same.

And I'm not saying Nadal is a better player overall than Federer.

Click to expand...

Federer did beat Nadal in Miami on a HC in 5 sets and has beaten him 4 times at the WTF. Maybe if they had met more times at HC slams when Fed was in his prime he would have won a few. The fact that these two are 5 years apart in age has to be taken into account but I know the Fed haters won't ever do that. Five years in tennis is a lifetime.

I'm done with Nadal. For me, he's ruining the game. For the record, I loved when Nadal finally got over on Fed at Wimbledon. But with his ridiculous antics, cheesy gamesmanship and perpetual complaining (and not seeing somebody to help with that stupid butt picking thing) really puts me off. I want him to go away.

Federer did beat Nadal in Miami on a HC in 5 sets and has beaten him 4 times at the WTF. Maybe if they had met more times at HC slams when Fed was in his prime he would have won a few. The fact that these two are 5 years apart in age has to be taken into account but I know the Fed haters won't ever do that. Five years in tennis is a lifetime.

Click to expand...

You can see it both ways...the 5 years work for federer as well as against him now. Prime is hard to know because it changes according to who you are playing, conditions, surfaces etc.

There is a lot of talk about weak, strong eras but you can only play who is there. My opinion is that all these players: Djokovic, Federer, Murray, Nadal
have forced each other to get better.

The next tier Ferrer, Delpotro,Tsonga, Gasquet etc have also been forced to step up their games as well.

Nadal being out meant others had an opportunity & him coming back will reinstall some of that excitement at the majors. You can see how much his reappearance means to tennis fans in South America.
Nadal being back playing is generating excitement in tennis.

I do but less because of his fighting spirit (though I have to admit he does bring the greatest intensity on court since Hewitt in his younger days) and more because IMO he matches-up better with both Novak and Murray individually than they do with each other (not that I think Novak-Murray matches are terrible mind you, I'm not judging their rivalry solely on their last slam final meeting).

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree completely. Nadal's intensity and playing style make for incredible rivalries. People accuse him all the time of him having killed tennis with "boring and uninspired tennis". I think they got it all wrong.

The fact that these two are 5 years apart in age has to be taken into account but I know the Fed haters won't ever do that. Five years in tennis is a lifetime.

Click to expand...

1. It works both ways. In the first part of their rivalry, Fed was in his prime, and Nadal was very far from it, he was just a kid.
2. Who was in his prime and able to challenge Fed when Fed was in his prime? Hewitt? Safin? Nalbandian? Fed had it quite easy during his prime if you ask me. Way easier than Nadal or Djokovic.

I'm done with Nadal. For me, he's ruining the game. For the record, I loved when Nadal finally got over on Fed at Wimbledon. But with his ridiculous antics, cheesy gamesmanship and perpetual complaining (and not seeing somebody to help with that stupid butt picking thing) really puts me off. I want him to go away.

Click to expand...

If you ever were a Nadal fan, you wouldn't be saying all this crap about him. You sound like a stealthy hater trying to confuse people. Probably a banned one. Your user name is a lie and so are you.

You can see it both ways...the 5 years work for federer as well as against him now. Prime is hard to know because it changes according to who you are playing, conditions, surfaces etc.

There is a lot of talk about weak, strong eras but you can only play who is there. My opinion is that all these players: Djokovic, Federer, Murray, Nadal
have forced each other to get better.

The next tier Ferrer, Delpotro,Tsonga, Gasquet etc have also been forced to step up their games as well.

Nadal being out meant others had an opportunity & him coming back will reinstall some of that excitement at the majors. You can see how much his reappearance means to tennis fans in South America.
Nadal being back playing is generating excitement in tennis.

Click to expand...

I agree completely with this post. Sensible reasoning and sound conclusions.

1. It works both ways. In the first part of their rivalry, Fed was in his prime, and Nadal was very far from it, he was just a kid.
2. Who was in his prime and able to challenge Fed when Fed was in his prime? Hewitt? Safin? Nalbandian? Fed had it quite easy during his prime if you ask me. Way easier than Nadal or Djokovic.

Click to expand...

As you said it works both ways: finding prime or your window is sometimes easier, sometimes harder. It being easy doesn't mean you are better at the end of it. Having a few stronger rivals can actually force you to improve at a faster rate.

Fed. really struggled to find his place on the tour at the start, Rafa really exploded from a young age, ask anyone who coached or played the tour when he was 16, everyone shook their heads at how accelerated and talented he was, the intensity too!
Fed. struggled with Nalby too..go back & have a look at some of their matches.

More importantly Fed. struggled with himself, he must have looked at Lleyton & wondered how does he do it? Hewitt won with his intensity & competitiveness when he was no. 1, Fed. did it with his strokes & playing ability more. It doesn't matter how you do it: being no. 1 lasts!

When Nadal, Djokovic came along he had two new threats & now Murray
has broken the Federer spell too.

Every number 1 has their window or "prime", now it looks like Djokovic.

Nobody can be complacent though & with Nadal back & Murray working harder than ever, this should be another great tennis year.